It seems the greatest challenges in man-made systems come from the precarious balance between where to provide structure and where to provide freedom. What do we tell them they have to do, and where do we allow them to do whatever they want? What do we make them do versus what we let them do versus where we don't say anything at all? Where is the line of trust versus control? When is it necessary and when does it backfire? And is - as our CEO recently said unabashedly in a corporate strategic planning meeting about the new strategy (almost ironically called "Project Autonomy") - autonomy always an illusion?
I consistently refer back to one example of structure being necessary for creativity: if someone asks you to name something green, the list can go on for minutes, maybe longer, of things in the universe both real and imagined that are green. If the prompt becomes simply "name something" the list quickly degenerates to objects and ideas in the immediate surroundings. Without an entry point into the neural pathways of the brain provided by the structure - and in a manner of speaking limitation - of an adjective, the brain can't be creative. It can't create something from nothing, in other words, and the something it needs is in essence a limitation. But give it too many limitations - for example, name something green that grows on the ground - and the list becomes, unsurprisingly, too limited. Unless you're specifically looking for an answer of "grass" or "weeds," in which case, why ask the question?
This concept is too closely related to the same concept in government and other man-made systems to even be considered a metaphor. It is the same idea, the same challenge, the same constant experimenting to find the perfect balance of control and freedom. I guess, perhaps, it all comes down to the question "what is the goal?"
No comments:
Post a Comment